reaper

The Chairman of a business doesnt get involved in the day to day so he may not know what is happening financially with the club - however, the Board should receive periodic updates on the financial status of the club - so he should at least be aware of what is going on, to an extent. If you have a devious management running the business it is VERY EASY to hide stuff from your Chair, particularly as the chairperson isnt involved daily. From a business perspective, the Board (and therefore Chair) are the strategic arm of the club, not the daily business - again, though, they should be given briefings as to what is taking place at the club from a high-level perspective. It is still easy to hide stuff from them though.

 

Likewise, the manager has a remit which is to deal with football matters - he has no entitlement to be told anything about the financial, or business, affairs of the club other than to know what impact it has on his running of the footballing side.

What sort of things would a bent board hide from two stalwarts who just departed yesterday, would a bent board be able to hide things from such stalwarts with unsurpassed financial acumen and city experience.

Ally who (according to myth) single handedly saved the club from the abyss and his tight as a drum godfather/mentor don't know what is happening at the club (that is of course if there is anything going on at all) they have spent life times at as player managers and chairman, you may believe it I know many who don't.

I've no idea how much information Ally and Walter are privy to or, how much they understand about what's happening. (They're football men after all, not businessmen.)

 

It would be good if there was someone in a position of influence who possessed both a good understanding of the corporate world and an unquestionable love for Rangers Football Club, wouldn't it?

Here's me thinking Wattie was our chairman and Ally our manager, if they don't know what is going on they should be taking a good look at themselves.

It would be a good idea to have a hard headed businessman in the boardroom ready to make the decisions that are necessary even if he comes with a heavy stipend, oh wait ..

UCF2008 pretty much nailed it. A lot (in fact most) of the so-called scaremongering, innuendo and half-truths over the past couple of years have proven to be correct or are in the process of being proven correct. For that reason, I think it's unwise to constantly criticize the quality of information and the people willing to take it seriously enough to discuss it in detail on the "boards".

I take it Wattie and Ally are unaware of any shenanigans going on during their watch, obviously they would speak out and inform the fans if there was and they were wouldn't they, as obviously dignified silence would show a measure of acquiescence.

MM spat the dummy but didn't spit it out of the pram.

Mate said it was a lot of punts up to Daly.

Charlie has taken millions out of rangers king has put tens of millions in. I know who I support of the two and why .

 

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

If you have concerns as to how Charles obtained any monetary gain from Rangers perhaps you should share them with the constabulary, who will no doubt investigate your concerns to their full extent for which all reasonable Rangers fans will thank you.

The slight if you can call it slight difference between the two parties that you mention is that the South Africans thought it prudent to inform and ask the assistance of the British courts in freezing Mr King's Rangers holdings at that time, apparently the SA authorities had concerns that the monies were not Mr King's to invest and had been obtained surreptitiously.

Perhaps King will pursue his threat to sue murray for his alleged £20 million to be returned, as scammers go King appears to be a good few leagues below the master murray, how ironically delicious that one should get turned over by the other.

As for Charles has he ever been censured by a court or had his monies or property seized by the authorities, I await your complaint to the constabulary with interest and its outcome, or perhaps Wattie will beat you to it as you said previously he knows what is going on.

What do you make of King's previous comments that we have something to be sorry about, ironical and spectacularly wrong about covers them.

http://www.topnewstoday.org/redirect/index.php?g=2579787

Murray stepped down as chairman in May but stayed on the board, amid speculation of moves to oust him.

He was replaced in the role by ex-Gers boss Walter Smith in what was regarded as a move to bring some stability to the club which re-emerged in the Third Division last year following its descent into administration and then liquidation.

However, yesterday, in an another day of boardroom shuffles at the Govan club Murray and fellow non-executive director Phil Cartmell left the board as bus company boss James Easdale's appointment to the board as a non-executive director was confirmed.

In the open letter, released to Press Association Sport, Murray said:

"I make this statement not for self-gratification or sour grapes but because so many fans have told me that dignified silence will be seen as a sign of disrespect.

"My previously criticised silence was observed in the best interests of Rangers.

"I was chairman of this great club for arguably the most difficult year in its long history.

"I was recommended for the role by the investment institutions because of my strong record of honesty, integrity and my successful stewardship, of a 25% shareholding in Manchester United from the bottom to the top but not least because I am a Rangers fan and everything I have done or do is for the club and not self-interest or financial gain.

"It has been a difficult shift and I'd like to thank you, the fans, for your support which I enjoyed as recently as Sunday when I drove over 600 miles to Brora.

"I would also like to thank my wife and daughter for their patience and endurance of great hardship - including no holiday for a year and harassment by journalists in their own garden.

"During the dark days of last summer I put a six-figure sum into the club to literally stop the lights going out at Ibrox at a time when we were in real danger.

"My family have given things up to help save Rangers in this difficult year. There aren't many wives who would let their husband pay someone else's significant electricity bill.

"You and I want a squeaky-clean club run by men of the highest integrity and global commercial ability and the highest level of transparency.

"The reason we went down the flotation route was to guarantee transparency, whereas ownership by mysterious individuals does not.

"Events of the last year have seen behaviour that would make the late, great Bill Struth spin in his grave.

"The loss of two men (Phil and myself) with such lengthy financial public company experience and a quality broker will undoubtedly raise questions amongst our institutional shareholders.

"Only time will tell how they will react. These investors and you are our future and you must be listened to and given transparency.

"We cannot go back to the depths of the last two years, we need to hold course. Corporate transparency is the norm and we should embrace it rather than change course when difficult questions are asked."

The letter continued: "My family and I will always be fans and season ticket holders and I will remain a shareholder and use whatever influence I have to help the Rangers. I want the best for our club both on and off the pitch.

"I want our fans to be talking about football and the development of our rich history and culture. I hope to be the only chairman in our history to preside over a Third Division title!"

Thought king won his battle with SARS?

Not by a long shot he didn't Rab, the hypocrisy of people slaughtering Charlie and supporting a real villain in King is amusing if not downright comical.

One thing is for certain.... it was not even CLOSE to the amount that SARS were chasing for and, from articles I have read, SARS were left very, very red-faced over their chasing of King.

 

reaper - Easdale was convicted. King wasnt. Whether they were ill-gotten gains or not has yet to be proven by SARS, wouldnt you agree ? Or you subscribe to the "guilty until proven innnocent" mantra ?

As before Easdale's brother was convicted our new director wasn't, you seem to have taken the formerly quoted appeal Judge and his views on innocence/guilt on board, King has not been relieved of shed loads by courts and classed a glib liar by a Judge because the SA government invented tax dodging charges which he admitted to and conspired against him because he is free of guilt.

wasn't it only about 5 million?

Yeah maybe a little more or maybe a lot more,

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-south-africa/tax-rebel-dave-king-loses-sandhurst-and-plett-pala

No more wrong than Easdale though, right ? Except Easdale's brother DID get convicted of tax evasion, whilst King hasnt as yet.

 

The reality of King's position, no matter how long or how loud you remonstrate, is that he hasnt been convicted as yet. Could he ? Of course. Has he ? Not yet, not as far as I can see. Nothing to do with suspending reality. Was it not you that mentioned that you deal in FACTS.... well, fact is, unless there is a conviction I havent seen as yet, is that King hasnt been convicted. That would appear to be the facts as they currently stand. No need to suspend reality for that. Perhaps it is YOU that is suspending reality to shoe-horn your dislike of King into a "convicted tax evader" persona.

 

Again, I dont believe I said that King is not guilty of anything. I will go by the facts if that is OK by you.... and fact is, even though SARS have, as you mention, 323 charges up against him.... those charges have been placed upon King for a decade now... how come SARS dont have any convictions as yet ?

 

Again, I am not saying he is innocent... but if SARS had found enough to convict, you dont think they would have done so by now ?

 

King may indeed be a wrong un, but personally I dont think he is any worse than having the Easdale's with the hand in the running of Rangers. Personally I would prefer King to Easdale, as is my prerogative.

Facts are simple, Easdales brother was convicted and King was relieved of shed loads of ill gotten gains by South African courts, ideally neither should darken the hallowed portals, however saints are thin on the ground especially in business. and as usual we the fans will have no say.

Outstanding charges doesnt mean he is a criminal, unless I missed the "innocent until proven guilty" legal mantra. My original post asked if "King had been convicted" - you posted two links to suggest he had. Neither link prove any convictions. This is nothing to do with supposition, you posted suggesting he had been convicted when evidently he hasnt been.

 

Settlements do not always accompany accepted guilt. Or, are we saying that RFC would have been guilty of the EBT evasion case if Whyte had been successful in his settlement attempt ? No, it doesnt mean we were guilty, it means we would have seen the benefit of simply paying for the issue to be resolved. Do you know for sure that this wasnt Dave King's reasoning when he settled ? Remember, it could very well have been worth his while settling given his assets were frozen - a settlement which appeases both sides would make sense.

 

As for the outstanding charges... no convictions yet, correct ?

 

I didnt see me suggesting anywhere that he was as pure as the driven snow, can you point me to where I said that please ?

 

What I will point to was my question as to whether or not he had been convicted of tax evasion.... and your links in supprt of that didnt, in fact, support it at all.

What I will point to is your ability to suspend the reality of King's position and the censures imposed on him, your stance is akin to that of the appeal Judge who the other day claimed that the man cleared of Jill Dando's murder after serving eight years was not innocent enough to warrant compensation, maybe you don't think King is guilty of anything and has been relieved of his ill gotten gains by the big bad SARS and courts.

King is a wrong un, you are of course free to disagree.

First link is a settlement, not a conviction.

 

The 2nd one also doesnt confirm a conviction.

 

So, unless I am missing something, I dont see any convictions for tax evasion.

What you also don't see is 332 outstanding criminal charges, if you see a settlement forced on King by a South African bench seizure of property and monies as some sort of vindication of his tax expertise who am I to argue. King of course is purer than the driven snow as we are all aware, seizure and settlement was because King had done no wrong.

Has King actually been convicted of tax evasion ? I thought that SARS lost a number of their cases against him whilst the remainder are still outstanding - or am I incorrect ?

http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/03/20/king-strikes-confidential-deal-with-sars

http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/06/28/player-in-court-wrangle-with-king-curator-over-stud-farm

Gangsters Al Capone Easdales tax evasion, what does that make King ?

Yes, it is that 'Hanson', he's the chairman.

I've a mate who was involved in a wonderful if alarming 'incident' with him many years ago. My mate was a policeman in the RAF at the time.

It unfortunately confirms everything you fear about the class system in this country and the connections of the powerful. I'd love to share it with you but it would probably get Gersnet closed down. It has no bearing on this story either.

Two names cover all, fred the shred and lord lucan.

regarding strand hanson i remember reading a story about them in the telegraph back in 2011 were the writer warned this company should come with a health warning i think if i remember correct this is an offshoot of the old hanson trust which for older fans may remember were asset stippers mr prior in my opinion is spot on with his caution .

i wonder if old lord hansons odious son robert has anything to do with this company a man who would sell anything to make profit for his investors/friends .

Some alleged financial writers lead very sheltered lifes, they appear to think the world is made of sponge cake crisp clean bankers and risk be the devil, tossers and a piss poor article in which the target played with the so called author.

Prior's comments have MM all over them, no surprise there.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.strandhanson.co.uk%2F&ei=_Q7dUe3SOerR0QXisoGQCw&usg=AFQjCNGQ0P8YO8BwK1z9TDMrlMMbZJPPSA&bvm=bv.48705608,d.d2k

What sort of whizkid hasn't heard of a company that turned over near a billion in 2004 alone in city deals ?

i repeat season book cash is in.

 

if people have any sense it will be withdrawn mind you.

Much as I admire your direct approach it is catch 22, such a withdrawl of funding could deal us a hammer blow from which we may never recover as to what we are and known as.

All that I yearn for is for us to be run solely as a football club and not a vehicle for chancers to fill their pockets of our filthy lucre and where our biggest concern is solely what's happening on the pitch in front of us not in the boardroom behind us.

Amen to that, since the days of Murray buying us with BoS money things have never been very transparent.

Na he's just serenely blissful.

We may have different views FS but it doesn't mean we can't meet in the middle somewhere, I have not the slightest doubt that you have only good intentions to accompany your viewpoint, however I am puzzled as to what you actually would like to see happen to improve matters or more so trust. I am open to any suggestions that bring all together with a clear vision of what is required wanted or needed.

Sorry, but that gives me two figures and answers none of my questions.

You will have to report Cenkos to the relevant authority if you are not at ease with their publicly published figures also published on the LSE and accredited by Cenkos amongst others.

Then you have a very limited imagination.

I do, my imagination is based on fact and what is known, the doomsayers are of a different breed.

That is another contentious thing. Can this actually be validated and verified in any way? How much was taken in, how much was used for what, how much remains, and how much if any "vanished". I for one assume that these figure will be made available in the half-year or annual accounts, which are due when again?

Seems clear enough.

Rangers International Football Club plc (AIM: Mkt Cap £46 million)

Cenkos acted as nominated adviser and broker to Rangers International Football Club plc on its initial public offering on AIM and placing/public offer to raise £22.2 million. Rangers International Football Club is the holding company for the Scottish football club 'Rangers'. The proceeds of the placing and public offer will be used to secure the Club's financial position, update and develop the Club's facilities, capitalise on the Club's global brand and enable the Club to enhance its playing squad when appropriate.

http://www.cenkos.com/latest-news/rangers